MOHAN S KERKAR Vs. SHRIPAD V PILANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and Award dated 24/7/2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji in Claim Petition no.207/1994 by which the appellants have been ordered to pay compensation of Rs.1,27,720/- with interest thereon at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of filing of the petition till payment. The liability of the Insurance Company, respondent no.2 herein is limited to Rs.6000/- only. The claimants have filed cross objection claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.

(2.) " The Appellant no.1 was the driver and appellant no.2 was the owner of the truck bearing no.GDT-5535 which was involved in the accident.

(3.) " The claim was contested by the respondents. The Insurance Company took up the defence that their liability was restricted to Rs.6000/- only. On the basis of the pleading, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i) Whether the claimant proves that on 22.3.94 at about 16.20 hours the respondent no.1 drove a truck No.GDT-5535 loaded with stones in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the shop bearing house no.9 in ward no.8 in Arun Niketan, opposite S.T. Stand, Mapusa and damaged it completely? ii) Whether the claimant proves that in the said accident he also suffered minor injuries? iii) Whether the claimant proves that he is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- towards damages caused to the shop? iv) Whether the respondent nos.1 and 2 prove that the brakes of the said truck failed when the respondent no.1 was coming down the slope from Dattawadi to Ansabhat, Mapusa and that he tried his level best to control the truck by putting it in gear and therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation? v) Whether the respondent no.3 proves that their liability under the Insurance policy of the said truck in respect of damage to property of third party is limited to Rs.6000/- only? vi) Whether the respondent no.3 proves that respondent no1. was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and that the vehicle was used without valid permit therefore, there has been breach of policy conditions and they are not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant?